Case law

Former Employees of Siemens Information Communication Networks, Inc. v. Herman

120 F. Supp. 2d 1107 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 1, 2000

Cir. 1985) (concluding that plaintiff’s alleged reliance on explicit assurances of government official “clearly pl[ed] equitable considerations which may excuse noncompliance with the filing requirement”); see also Rios … Supp. 1021, 1026 (1986) (finding no correlation between application of one-year qualifying rule with which workers petitioning for trade adjustment assistance must comply and Secretary’s duty to inform under section 2275

Elizabeth River Terminals, Inc. v. United States

509 F. Supp. 517 · United States Court of International Trade · Feb 26, 1981

The voyages undertaken clearly refute plaintiff’s assertion of a “permanent” mooring. … Clearly, Congress entertained no doubt that “barges” are vessels within the meaning of the statute.

Nan Ya Plastics Corp., Am. v. United States

853 F. Supp. 2d 1300 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 12, 2012

This allegation is insufficient to establish Nan Ya’s eligibility for CDSOA benefits. … Neither of these actions qualified Nan Ya as an ADP.

BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. United States

674 F. Supp. 1477 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 21, 1987

George was well-qualified to give his opinion that the merchandise was ink. … Although Bafixans do not fit easily into ordinary notions of either dyes or inks, the testimony clearly established that Bafixans fit the relevant industry definition of ink and perform as inks do.

Wooten v. United States, Secretary of Agriculture

441 F. Supp. 2d 1253 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 6, 2006

Plaintiff has failed to establish the facts necessary to warrant his eligibility for trade adjustment assistance benefits. Defendant’s Motion is granted and Plaintiff’s Motion is denied. … Congress clearly stated in 19 U.S.C. § 2401e(a)(1)(C) that “net farm income” shall be determined by the Secretary, precluding any need to go beyond the plain meaning of the statute to discern Congressional intent.

Save Domestic Oil, Inc. v. United States

240 F. Supp. 2d 1342 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 17, 2002

Moreover, if only regional producers qualify as interested parties, then only an association of which a majority of members are regional producers may qualify as an interested party. … Remand Determ. at 12 (“[W]e find that a product that is included in the subject merchandise is clearly within the domestic like product.

Kemet Electronics Corp. v. Barshefsky

976 F. Supp. 1012 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 19, 1997

If and when the agreement is submitted to Congress, it will be the result of action by the President, action clearly not reviewable under the APA.” Id. at 551-52 . … Plaintiffs need not assert a further cause of action or waiver of sovereign immunity. See Florsheim Shoe Co. v.

United States v. Lafidale, Inc.

942 F. Supp. 2d 1362 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 30, 2013

The complaint’s well-pled facts establish defendant’s liability for a civil penalty. … None of the imported entries qualified as “wholly or mainly covered with paper.” Id.

Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. United States

277 F. Supp. 2d 1364 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 13, 2003

VW’s protests clearly contest the appraised values of the entries because many of the vehicles allegedly contained latent defects, and clearly request an allowance commensurate with those defects. … See Samsung II at 380, n.4 (“For purposes of the remand, we specially note that only those defects in existence at the time of importation qualify for an ‘allowance’ in value.

International Business Machines Corp. v. United States

21 Ct. Int'l Trade 670 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 18, 1997

Item 676.30, TSUS, is not too broad to qualify as a “specific provision” because headnote 2(a) narrows its scope in three ways: it limits where the machine may be used; it limits what types of machines qualify; and it requires … Nevertheless, the Court finds that IBM’s protests constitute such a request because they clearly claim that an EUP for the classification of the subject Controllers and Drives existed.

Pam, S.P.A. v. United States Department of Commerce

265 F. Supp. 2d 1362 · United States Court of International Trade · May 8, 2003

To qualify for a startup adjustment, a producer must satisfy two requirements under the statute. … Commerce’s interpretation, consistent with the SAA, is clearly reasonable.

A Classic Time v. United States

20 Ct. Int'l Trade 1198 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 2, 1996

Relying on the axiom that, in the absence of express congressional consent to the award of interest separate from a general waiver of immunity to suit, the United States is immune from an interest award[, 2 ] the court of … In that case, the Service clearly was lacking information of the kind covered by section 1504(b)(1), supra. Here, the matter is not as clear.

Black & White Vegetable Co. v. United States

125 F. Supp. 2d 531 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 12, 2000

Cir. 1998) ("If an error qualifies as an 'error in the construction of a law,' that inquiry is dispositive, but if it does not so qualify, the party seeking correction must still show that its error fits within one of the … Defendant errs in placing too great a significance on these decisions which were clearly limited to their particular facts.

Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. v. United States

884 F. Supp. 2d 1283 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 20, 2012

Here, Defendant does not dispute that Gem Year’s merchandise entered during the POR or that it qualifies as subject merchandise. … What specific evidence it relies on has not been explained clearly, but it was not permitted to develop a record on this point.

Royal United Corp. v. United States

714 F. Supp. 2d 1307 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 25, 2010

Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal of claim over which plaintiff sought jurisdiction under § 1581(i), because “[the] action falls clearly under § 1581(c)” but plaintiff failed to participate in the administrative proceeding … Accordingly, the APA provides a plaintiff with an independent cause of action where that plaintiff pleads facts sufficient to establish that it could not have availed itself of an existing statutory cause of action.

Oak Laminates Division of Oak Materials Group v. United States

628 F. Supp. 1577 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 25, 1984

In the present case, the four witnesses were clearly qualified to discuss the nature and properties of the imported merchandise. The court, however, places greater reliance upon the testimony of the defendant’s experts. … The evidence presented establishes clearly that, even though the plastic core is an essential component of the imported article, the copper foil is also “equally essential.’’

Meridian Products, LLC v. United States

37 F. Supp. 3d 1342 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 29, 2014

exhaustion would be ‘a useless formality,’ intervening legal authority ‘might have materially affected the agency’s actions,’ the issue involves ‘a pure question of law not requiring further factual development,’ where ‘clearly … Cir. 1997) (“[w]here Congress uses terms that have accumulated settled meaning under either equity or the common law, a court must infer, unless the statute otherwise dictates, that Congress means to incorporate the established

Uniden America Corp. v. United States

120 F. Supp. 2d 1091 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 30, 2000

Thus, in order to qualify for the GSP, an article must satisfy three principal conditions. … The title of 19 C.F.R. § 10.177, "Cost or value of materials produced in the [BDC]," however, clearly demonstrates that the regulation limits itself to explaining the itself has not been substantially

New Hampshire Ball Bearing, Inc. v. United States

815 F. Supp. 2d 1301 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 3, 2012

(“Because it serves a substantial government interest, the Byrd Amendment is also clearly not violative of equal protection under the rational basis standard.”).6 We address below the four claims that are stated … In addressing generally the subject of due process challenges to retrospective legislation, the Supreme Court summarized an established principle, stating that “[i]t is by now well established that legislative Acts adjusting

Cabana v. United States Secretary of Agriculture

29 Ct. Int'l Trade 884 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 1, 2005

The USDA maintains that Cabana does not qualify for TAA benefits and, therefore, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See id. … Cabana asserts that he submitted his application for benefits “along with business records clearly identifying the total salmon catch for both 2001 and 2002 as well as tax returns submitted to the Internal Revenue Service